For our paper, I thought it was very easy to justify that Faulkner wrote both As I Lay Dying and his Nobel prize acceptance speech in the same state of mind. It's hard to believe that at first because we automatically realize how different the depressing tone of the novel is from the uplifting nature of the speech. However, when we think about the characters of the book, it's much easier to see. Anse, Dewey Dell, and people like them have problems in life because they're selfish rather than compassionate. Addie and Cash, however, who understand what love really is, are good but are brought down by the people who have conflicts. What does anyone else think?- NVa-c Feb 25, 2008 This page was last revised by ptr-c on Feb 27, 2008 8:22 pm.
I agree with you, NVa. I think it's fair to say that Faulkner's values could not have changed completely from the time he wrote the novel to the time he wrote the acceptance speech. This means that the ideas set up by both do match even though they do not seem that way at first. I said that Faulkner wrote As I Lay Dying to show the effects of what happens when people act contrarily to the ideals he mentioned in his speech. He wrote it as a way to show how destructive it can be to live by the Bundrens' ideals. The Bundrens did not have the compassion or love that he wrote to be critical in his speech, and they all lived miserable lives and lost dearly because of it. - LDo-c Feb 25, 2008
I also saw the speech connecting to the novel. I could see each character representing different universal human truths in the novel. I agree that Cash would represent love (I'm not so sure about Addie) he gave up so much for his family (i.e. laying on a smelly coffin, allowing concrete to be poured on his leg) only love could motivate that kind of sacrifice. Jewel was another character willing to sacrifice. He gave up his prized possesion--his horse. The novel was very depressing and morbid in tone that sharpley contrasted the uplifting tone of the speech. However, just because the tones are different doesn't mean that one contradicts the other. I believe that Faulkner used his characters to portray the universal truths he mentioned in his speech in As ILay Dying. - adi-c Feb 25, 2008
I easily saw the connection between the speech and the novel. While the war may have changed some of his views, I agree that it is highly unlikely his views completely changed between As I Lay Dying and the Nobel prize. Besides Faulkner never wrote that the book necessarily has to be a happy one or have a happy ending. He just said that writers have to remember the basis of fear, that they must write about the basic universal truths of love, pride, pity, etc. While no one character exemplified all these attributes, he contained many characters that exemplified some of them, which in the end appears more realistic to me. No person is perfect and containing an individual that always acted in the right, that never screwed up, would not portray a realistic person. Besides having these moral, better individuals struggle with the death of their mother and the ensuing journey helps to portray another one of his goals --- fear which can connect with suffering. It is as natural to suffer as a human as it is to experience any other emotion, and As I Lay Dying exemplified this. All in all, reading Faulkner's speech helped me to better understand what could have been his underlying purpose in writing As I Lay Dying.- AHa-c Feb 25, 2008
Even though Faulkner gave advice to the future generations of writers, I believe that his advice accurately related to his own work. My only misunderstanding is that his advice went beyond what he conveyed to the average reader, such as myself, in his novel As I Lay Dying. He said that, "It is a privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart," while I did not feel my heart lift at all while reading his novel. In all actuality, my heart was hardened, my heart grew saddened by the sufferings that were told in his novel. I was wondering if anyone could find a place in the novel As I Lay Dying in which his advice to help the reader, "endure and prevail," by, "lifting his heart," was conveyed. While every other aspect of his speech and his novel were connected quite well, this is the one area that was cloudy for me. Can anyone help lift the fog? - cdu-c Feb 25, 2008
To answer your question, Cdu, there were only a couple of instances that I think could possible help us endure. I'm with you that the novel didn't seem to be uplifting to me at all. But I think that Faulkner definitely realizes this. He doesn't think that a book necessarily needs to be uplifting to make us want to endure. Instead, he says that an author should inspire the readers by giving examples of the strong, positive qualities of the human heart. These qualities were best embodied by Cash and Jewel. They both sacrificed for their family (Cash his leg and Jewel his horse) and they both acted courageously and with love for their mother. Even their names suggest that they are the most "valuable" characters. Cash and Jewel endure through such a wacky and odd family; thus they are our inspirations to endure in our own lives. - Kho-c Feb 26, 2008
In no way was this uplifting for me either, and I too had a hard time finding any way that it could lift any hearts or help anyone edure. But then I started thinking about it in a round about way - especially after considering that Faulkner may have used the characters to show how terrible things can be if you do not display the positive qualities he mentioned in his speech. I could get an uplifting message if I look at myself and my family as compared to the Bundrens. While I know we all have our faults and I know way are we perfect, but I know we are no where near as bad and this gives me hope. It encourages me to keep trying to improve my own actions and to keep trying to communicate with my own family so we never become as disconnected and selfish as the family in the book. - MBe-c Feb 26, 2008
I agree in that the speech gave me a different and positive way of looking at the book. I don't necessairly think that it made me compare my life to theirs, but it made me look at the deeper meanings of the book. For example, I think that I got so caught up with the content of the book sometimes that I never took a step back. As I read, I got more and more involved with their actions and decisions and attitudes towards their family, each other, and their mother/wife. And all of it seemed so depressing and vile at times and just sad, but then I read the speech. It was hard to think of them as the same writer, but after some thought it makes sense. It was that line about matters of the human heart in conflict with itself that really set off the light bulb in my mind. That was what the Bundren's were going through. It all made sense. And it also put their situation into a different point of view. I felt sympathetic on one hand, but also understanding. It really made me connect the two pieces together. - ptr-c Feb 27, 2008
This page was last revised by ptr-c on Feb 27, 2008 8:22 pm.
I agree with you, NVa. I think it's fair to say that Faulkner's values could not have changed completely from the time he wrote the novel to the time he wrote the acceptance speech. This means that the ideas set up by both do match even though they do not seem that way at first. I said that Faulkner wrote As I Lay Dying to show the effects of what happens when people act contrarily to the ideals he mentioned in his speech. He wrote it as a way to show how destructive it can be to live by the Bundrens' ideals. The Bundrens did not have the compassion or love that he wrote to be critical in his speech, and they all lived miserable lives and lost dearly because of it.
-
I also saw the speech connecting to the novel. I could see each character representing different universal human truths in the novel. I agree that Cash would represent love (I'm not so sure about Addie) he gave up so much for his family (i.e. laying on a smelly coffin, allowing concrete to be poured on his leg) only love could motivate that kind of sacrifice. Jewel was another character willing to sacrifice. He gave up his prized possesion--his horse. The novel was very depressing and morbid in tone that sharpley contrasted the uplifting tone of the speech. However, just because the tones are different doesn't mean that one contradicts the other. I believe that Faulkner used his characters to portray the universal truths he mentioned in his speech in As I Lay Dying.
-
I easily saw the connection between the speech and the novel. While the war may have changed some of his views, I agree that it is highly unlikely his views completely changed between As I Lay Dying and the Nobel prize. Besides Faulkner never wrote that the book necessarily has to be a happy one or have a happy ending. He just said that writers have to remember the basis of fear, that they must write about the basic universal truths of love, pride, pity, etc. While no one character exemplified all these attributes, he contained many characters that exemplified some of them, which in the end appears more realistic to me. No person is perfect and containing an individual that always acted in the right, that never screwed up, would not portray a realistic person. Besides having these moral, better individuals struggle with the death of their mother and the ensuing journey helps to portray another one of his goals --- fear which can connect with suffering. It is as natural to suffer as a human as it is to experience any other emotion, and As I Lay Dying exemplified this. All in all, reading Faulkner's speech helped me to better understand what could have been his underlying purpose in writing As I Lay Dying. -
Even though Faulkner gave advice to the future generations of writers, I believe that his advice accurately related to his own work. My only misunderstanding is that his advice went beyond what he conveyed to the average reader, such as myself, in his novel As I Lay Dying. He said that, "It is a privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart," while I did not feel my heart lift at all while reading his novel. In all actuality, my heart was hardened, my heart grew saddened by the sufferings that were told in his novel. I was wondering if anyone could find a place in the novel As I Lay Dying in which his advice to help the reader, "endure and prevail," by, "lifting his heart," was conveyed. While every other aspect of his speech and his novel were connected quite well, this is the one area that was cloudy for me. Can anyone help lift the fog? -
To answer your question, Cdu, there were only a couple of instances that I think could possible help us endure. I'm with you that the novel didn't seem to be uplifting to me at all. But I think that Faulkner definitely realizes this. He doesn't think that a book necessarily needs to be uplifting to make us want to endure. Instead, he says that an author should inspire the readers by giving examples of the strong, positive qualities of the human heart. These qualities were best embodied by Cash and Jewel. They both sacrificed for their family (Cash his leg and Jewel his horse) and they both acted courageously and with love for their mother. Even their names suggest that they are the most "valuable" characters. Cash and Jewel endure through such a wacky and odd family; thus they are our inspirations to endure in our own lives. -
In no way was this uplifting for me either, and I too had a hard time finding any way that it could lift any hearts or help anyone edure. But then I started thinking about it in a round about way - especially after considering that Faulkner may have used the characters to show how terrible things can be if you do not display the positive qualities he mentioned in his speech. I could get an uplifting message if I look at myself and my family as compared to the Bundrens. While I know we all have our faults and I know way are we perfect, but I know we are no where near as bad and this gives me hope. It encourages me to keep trying to improve my own actions and to keep trying to communicate with my own family so we never become as disconnected and selfish as the family in the book.
-
I agree in that the speech gave me a different and positive way of looking at the book. I don't necessairly think that it made me compare my life to theirs, but it made me look at the deeper meanings of the book. For example, I think that I got so caught up with the content of the book sometimes that I never took a step back. As I read, I got more and more involved with their actions and decisions and attitudes towards their family, each other, and their mother/wife. And all of it seemed so depressing and vile at times and just sad, but then I read the speech. It was hard to think of them as the same writer, but after some thought it makes sense. It was that line about matters of the human heart in conflict with itself that really set off the light bulb in my mind. That was what the Bundren's were going through. It all made sense. And it also put their situation into a different point of view. I felt sympathetic on one hand, but also understanding. It really made me connect the two pieces together. -